Travis, I have noticed that not all government programmes fail in their stated aims. Some over-succeed. You give the great example of drugs. Use of hard drugs among the core 15-29 age group has gone up in the UK every year since hard drugs were banned in 1970. On the other hand, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy was designed to combat food shortages and farm poverty. It led to massive surpluses (‘grain mountains’) and to farmers driving Range Rovers and sending their kids to boarding school.
I think Murphy’s law is at work here. If the government policy has a decent enough motive, like reducing drug abuse, it will generally have the reverse effect to the one intended. If it was just stupid in the first place – the CAP applied the mechanisms of the ‘50s to the problems of the ‘40s – then it will over-succeed rather than fail.
BTW, Lonestar, are you sure about your figures? The only figures I have seen suggesting that drug use has come down are entirely due to demographics. The core 15-29 age group is shrinking. The number of over 80s is going up. But it is no credit to the ‘war on drugs’ that most 85 year olds aren’t smack heads. My understanding is that the percentage of 15-29 year olds using controlled substances is still rising in the US, just as it is in the UK. Absolute levels are, of course, vastly higher than when the substances were legal. And US consumption of marijuana is far higher than in Holland, where it is legal now.
Drug use is down among youth
http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/HSYouthtrends.html
I find the whole drug war debate annoying. One of the most popular myths is that prohibition did not work. The incidence of alcoholism and alcohol related disease was much reduced during prohibition. Consumption was also reduced.
Presumably, muslim countries have rampant alcoholism-- but they don't. I am not suggesting that we return to these policies but libertarians keep foisting this idea that by legalizing all things life will get better. Russia's biggest problem is alcoholism. I don't think it is because they prohibit it.
I guess I'll go out on a limb here and say I would not mind if every car in the US had a breathalyzer. I don't think people should be able to operate vehicles under the influence.
Most of the people I know who want to legalize marijuana don't want to do so for fiscal or reduction reasons. They want to legalize it so they can get it easier. Libertarianism is in my experience a dodge for having serious values-- let the market decides because I never will.
I am not as aggressive with government as libertarian stereotypes suggest but things like public smoking bans do actually appeal to me. The religion issue is interesting to me because I don't see people saying, "make religion illegal in public and you will make it more popular."